Megyn Kelly: Media in spin room laughed and applauded at Obama’s “bayonets” line

posted at 4:41 pm on October 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. I take it the defense here will be that they weren’t rooting for Obama, just grooving on a righteous zinger expertly dealt even though it was incorrect on the merits. But maybe I’m wrong; maybe there’ll be no defense. The media’s gotten more forthright about its biases and shortcomings over the past 10 years thanks to the endless watchdogging online, so there’s no sense grasping for excuses. Why bother? Everyone knows the score. This isn’t the first time reporters have been caught rooting publicly against a Republican, either. The Seattle Times gave bloggers a week of laughs five years ago when they admitted that some staff members had cheered Karl Rove’s resignation; the editor reprimanded them for showing partisanship in a place as “sacred and magical” as the newsroom. A few days later, Joe Scarborough revealed that people in the MSNBC “newsroom” had booed Bush consistently through one of his SOTUs. When he told MSNBC prez Phil Griffin about it, Griffin supposedly “turned red very quickly” and put a stop to it. And that’s how MSNBC became the sober, studiously nonpartisan investigative news team that you know today.

Speaking of Fox and last night’s debate, it ended up being the highest-rated program in the network’s history, slightly ahead of their audience for the Palin/Biden debate in 2008. Total television viewers according to Nielsen’s preliminary estimate were 53.9 million, which is predictably way off the pace of the first and second debates. Too much competition last night with the NLCS and “Monday Night Football” and likely not enough interest in foreign policy. It may also be that low-information voters decided they didn’t need a third look at Romney. He killed in the first debate and was perfectly acceptable in the second, so he’d already cleared the bar of viability. And he knew it, which is why he was playing prevent defense.

This all reminds me of the attacks on Candy Crowley.
The more effective the damage to Romney from an Obama line…the more bizarre you guys get in desperate attempts to find a way to dismiss it.
“Um noooooo…there’s still bayonets!! Really, there are!! And and and and and and and he called a ship a sub…or a sub or ship…noooooo!! That’s is NOT technically correct!!! He said ‘who’ when he should have used ‘whom’!!!”

Just cements the image that the bulk of the media are prissy backbiting gossip-slashing queers / metrosexuals, who don’t know jack shiite about the military. If that sort of horsecrap slapfighting remark / feeble attempt at a putdown meets with their tittering approval.

People left and right agree the President lost the first debate. But I have yet to hear a rightist acknowledge that Romney lost the next two. He got fact-checked in the second and “bayoneted” in the third.

First, Romney was talking about the Navy requiring 313 vessels to achieve the objectives set for them by President Obama, and how President Obama has actively denied them the same.

Obama responded with a quip about how we don’t use bayonets or horses like we used to. Nevermind the factual inaccuracy of his bayonet comment, Obama completely ignored the point made by Romney.

Now that I think of it – intentionally missing the point seems to be par for the course for liberals.

The point in the discussion we’re talking about is that Obama is actively preventing the Navy from achieving the mission he’s set for them. That has yet to be addressed by the President or any of his defenders on this board.

And for that jackassed Liar in Chief to mock the horse is to mock their use in the early going in AFG by our Special Forces, a use commemorated JUST LAST WEEK with a statue at the WTC site. How pathetic are leftists that they don’t know these things? And more stupidly, expect the audiences they are trying to lie to don’t (either).

This all reminds me of the attacks on Candy Crowley.
The more effective the damage to Romney from an Obama line…the more bizarre you guys get in desperate attempts to find a way to dismiss it.
“Um noooooo…there’s still bayonets!! Really, there are!! And and and and and and and he called a ship a sub…or a sub or ship…noooooo!! That’s is NOT technically correct!!! He said ‘who’ when he should have used ‘whom’!!!”

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

The exchange I posted at 7:27, did Obama lie about what Romney had written in the op-ed or didn’t he?

And for that jackassed Liar in Chief to mock the horse is to mock their use in the early going in AFG by our Special Forces, a use commemorated JUST LAST WEEK with a statue at the WTC site. How pathetic are leftists that they don’t know these things? And more stupidly, expect the audiences they are trying to lie to don’t (either).

rayra on October 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Could just be ALINSKY tactics. YOu know how those satan worhippers do.

They still use bayonets and horses, so Obama was a horse’s ass last night. I had to stop watching that debate with that condescending smart on his face and some of the things O said. I was stunned to hear him say the word “we” instead of I or me. Does anyone know what the Friends of Syria actually dos or if it exists. It sounded like a lie to me.

to quote McCain as he turned his back on fighting this dumb bo commie B. Obama.

“He is a good man and would make a good President and CIC.”

Dumb wad does not know come here from sck’m this B. Obama.

CIC and has not a foggy idea of what boot camp is.
CIC and has not a foggy idea of night patrol in the Afgan mountains or what direction the wind blows or how well those in the other peoples wooks can smell our hamburgers and french fires on our breath a mile away.

Back to the auto bailout?
A simple re-read through the thread will show I addressed this.
I’m well aware of your obsession with accusing Obama (or Biden or Dem of the day) of ‘lies’.
But it’s just a rhetorical game you play.
There are better ways to make a point…when there’s one to make.

jimver on October 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM
.
This all reminds me of the attacks on Candy Crowley.
The more effective the damage to Romney from an Obama line…the more bizarre you guys get in desperate attempts to find a way to dismiss it.
“Um noooooo…there’s still bayonets!! Really, there are!! And and and and and and and he called a ship a sub…or a sub or ship…noooooo!! That’s is NOT technically correct!!! He said ‘who’ when he should have used ‘whom’!!!”

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

.
What about the damage Obama did to himself, with that sorry-assed condescending line?

Never mind all of the other sorry-assed condescending lines, he spit out last night.

Bur regardless – the auto industry is back.
Maybe Romney would have had some success here…feel free to hypothesize.
But Obama did succeed here.

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

GM and Chrysler are not the entirety of OUR auto industry. Furthermore, Chrysler is owned by Fiat, which is an Italian company. GM’s most profitable assets are in China and look who’s outsourcing jobs!

Also, if GM keeps on its same track, we may very well be called on again to bailout it out.

57% of Americans would choose to buy a Ford over a GM or Chrysler car BECAUSE of the bailouts.

Listen, Bush started the bailouts and I was furious with him. If you think that I oppose the bailouts because I want to deny Obama a “victory,” then you are delusional.

But it’s just a rhetorical game you play.
There are better ways to make a point…when there’s one to make.

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I posted the exchange verbatim from the transcript so no, I wasn’t playing a “rhetorical game.” I asked you flat out if Obama lied in that exchange, even said a simple yes or no answer from you would suffice.

The fact that you didn’t give one tells us me all I needed to know. The boy king lied – and you’re too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

Bur regardless – the auto industry is back.
Maybe Romney would have had some success here…feel free to hypothesize.
But Obama did succeed here.

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Umm, yeah, GM is just a part of the auto industry….Ford is ‘back’ too, and not due to govt bailout or Obama…so, what do you think, are they more of a success story than O’s GM bailout, they sure are…so give me a break with O and his ‘ success’, Ford showed that it’s possbile to be competitive without the taxpayers’ money thrown into a black hole….as for current GM, who the heck buy their cars anyways? And most importantly, will they continue to buy them in the future? How many Volts did they sell again, and would they, if people didn’t get credit from the govt? This reminds me that even bigger idiot Hollande, in France, throwing a hissy fit coz nobody wants to buy Renault and Citroen, people want German cars, can’t imagine why :)….and he thinks he can force people to buy the friggin’ Renault, yeah, same old tricks, just like here, bailouts with taxpayers’ money, govt credit for buying their awful cars, pretty much the GM story…the truth being that sooner or later they will go under water (and they are not even ships :)….simply because their cars are not competitive and it’s the market that should decide who stays in the game and who doesn’t, not the govt…the govt shouldn’t be in the business of giving me credit to buy a bad car. Period.

The point Romney made is uncontested, you horse’s ass. You non military liberals have no credibility at all here, the Navy sets the number of ships they need based on the mission given them by the president, the Navy can barely meet current needs..

and that idiot Obama makes a prick remark about Horse’s..

and you dimwit liberals think it negates Obama’s complete failure to understand force structure?.. His disdain for what the actual men and women tasked with defence, say they need?

You dimwits always use defense as a piggy bank to raid so you can fund another vote buying give away..

and in the next war.. as in every war..

GI’s will die..

because douchebags like YOU play games with the equipment and ship requirements they need to perform their mission… to fund pet vote buying schemes.. or to pander to your ignorant as dirt left.. We don’t even have enough F-22’s to perform air superiority missions over an advanced air force with the newest Mig’s and Sukhoi fighters

WHICH PUTIN IS SELLING TO EVERYBODY…

How many Pilots do we need loose next time you dimwit?

How many?

I mean.. Obama says it ain’t like battleship and we have jets.. or those um.. fast moving thingie’s those warmongering cavemen want.. sigh.. so tough being the nations clueless prick in chief….

isn’t it verb?

His job is just so HARD, and they make him READ and stuff…. when he’d rather be on the back 9.

You know, sending a smile to a random commenter on a random blog makes my day more than it should.

Washington Nearsider on October 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

We don’t?

Hell…. they still issued me one, and I had two others.. an M-16 bayonet, a K-Bar because I liked the heft of it,.. and a gerber boot knife in the small of my back, just because a hidden weapon is sometimes a good choice.

Liberals are idiots..

If Matt Damon didn’t do it in a movie.. than no one ever did it for real… not any more any way..

This is what happens when the left wing part of this country, gets it’s knowledge of things military by watching action films..

I’m only surprised Obama didn’t mention the transformers as our allies.. his knowledge of force structure is acquired from Hollywood like every liberals is.

I posted the exchange verbatim from the transcript so no, I wasn’t playing a “rhetorical game.” I asked you flat out if Obama lied in that exchange, even said a simple yes or no answer from you would suffice.

The fact that you didn’t give one tells us me all I needed to know. The boy king lied – and you’re too intellectually dishonest to admit it.

Bur regardless – the auto industry is back. Maybe Romney would have had some success here…feel free to hypothesize. But Obama did succeed here.

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:26 PM

The stock is in the sh**ter and the taxpayers have not been repaid-regardless of claims to the contrary. How does that equal success? Did everybody get a participation trophy or something? Or are you simply being emotionally honest and deeming the greatest payoff to a political bloc -read UAW- in U.S. history a “success”?

Little late to be adding in on this but fun is fun. We still issue and train with the combat tactical tomahawks, one of the best close combat weapon in dense foliage. A company called KHHI in Nepal is working hard to fill orders for it’s khukuri. Personally I retired my Gerber Mark IV that I carried for nearly 6 years for a 12 in khukuri. If you don’t know what I’m talking about good. One more Item of history, in 1967-68 I commanded a unit in Siagon during TET. We were in between turning in our M14 for M16 point being we still had the M14’s but only one magazine per 4 weapons I taught and used the British Square. You know “first rank kneel, lock and load one round, second rank stand and fire, advance kneel and lock and load one round. The training was done by one of my SFC that still carried a horse cavalry MOS. The point is that it is not that we have “boats that go under the water” and “boats we land planes on”. It is the men and women that will get the job done how ever, where ever and when ever it needs to be done.
The Company I commanded in Viet Nam was one of about 6 company size units authorized a unit crest by the Department of Heraldry. On the crest was “PARATUS ET VERSATILES”, VERSATILE AND PREPARED.
This is the true value of all the men and woman that have ever worn a uniform.

jimver on October 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM
.
This all reminds me of the attacks on Candy Crowley.
The more effective the damage to Romney from an Obama line…the more bizarre you guys get in desperate attempts to find a way to dismiss it.
“Um noooooo…there’s still bayonets!! Really, there are!! And and and and and and and he called a ship a sub…or a sub or ship…noooooo!! That’s is NOT technically correct!!! He said ‘who’ when he should have used ‘whom’!!!”

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Don’t be silly, Obama damaged himself mainly, Romney emerged unscathed from the last night debate…especially stupid on 0’s part was to go into a territory that he has no clue about it…the man jimver on October 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM
.
This all reminds me of the attacks on Candy Crowley.
The more effective the damage to Romney from an Obama line…the more bizarre you guys get in desperate attempts to find a way to dismiss it.
“Um noooooo…there’s still bayonets!! Really, there are!! And and and and and and and he called a ship a sub…or a sub or ship…noooooo!! That’s is NOT technically correct!!! He said ‘who’ when he should have used ‘whom’!!!”

verbaluce on October 23, 2012 at 7:35 PM

That’s preposterous, Obama didn’t damage Romney in any way that makes sense.. Romney emerged unscathed from last night ‘s debate….especially stupid on 0’s part was to venture into territory he knows jack about (navy corpseman, remember? :), the man couldn’t tell the difference between a tank and an armored vehicle if he sees them side by side in a theatre of operations, yet he goes on to lecture about ships that are not needed anymore coz they are obsolete or something…the idiocy of that being that he emphasized time and again a shift towards Asia Pacific in his foreign policy and implicitly military interests…so guess what he will need the most in the Pacific, to help him with this ‘shift’ …heh, zactly right, more darned ships….and by that I do not mean ships that go under water :), but the kind that are supposed to stay afloat :)…

Mark, I wasn’t trying to be kind – too much water under the bridge for that. I simply left out the fine liberal ‘attributes’ that you listed. I agree it sure isn’t a blind spot. Liberals willfully support lies and evil while professing absolute moral superiority and intellectual clarity.

Ok, we have fewer horses than in 1917, more bayonets, way more knives, and nuclear ships and boats can’t be put into a Ghost Fleet because you have to destroy the vessel to remove the reactor.

In all, there are upsides to old technology like conventionally powered craft, and our enemies are way different, more distributed and sophisticated in ways that are require less of the big, bad ships and more of the smaller kind to protect shipping. Who would have thought that the end of the 20th century would see the rise of land Pirates we call terrorists and the resurrection of actual high seas Piracy, as well? Makes you kinda wish for the Good Old Days of battleships and Nations knowing that it wasn’t wise to go after naval assets because Nations had little worry about fragging you with gunboats.

Ahhh, those were the days, weren’t they?

Now you show the slightest bit of weakness and you can lose an Ambassador just like *that*. And all those drones, sophisticated aircraft and highly trained military units don’t do you a damned bit of good if you don’t have the will to use them. Its almost like we now have a set of enemies looking for any weakness to exploit and feel they can do so with impunity as they don’t have any fear of the FBI and know that a 16″ shell won’t be visiting them when they are a few miles from the shore.

China gets the old Varyag rehabilitated, Pirates in the South China Sea and off the coast of Somalia and even returning to the Med in the form of HAMAS raiders and other jihadis out to terrorize tourists… and even a few in the Caribbean, too.

Can’t have a decent sized navy to protect us… nope! All those satellites and drones and stuff will just figure it out for you and wait for the order to… well… hmmm… apparently there is a problem at the top of the command structure to actually give orders to protect the representative of the US and the personally appointed Ambassador of the President overseas.

The first part of getting the ships, manpower and such is pretty cheap.

The lack of willing leadership to protect the Nation is lethal.

Yeah, you can get binny-boy and all wacky, but going after guys actually attacking and killing our Ambassador? Heaven forefend! You need an ARREST WARRANT FOR THAT… its not like its an ACT OF WAR or something…

Oh…

Wait…

IT IS AN ACT OF WAR TO DO THAT.

Be nice to have a few more assets out there to protect our people. Isn’t there a guy at the top of the chain of command with an oath to do that?

This last debate was like the Formula car races where the standings in the world cup matter more than one race. Obama may have scored more points with the msms and his sycophant Dems but he lost on the total point score which is the presidency. Obama was so wrong so often that it made me sick. He is a big talker but has no command of the facts. Romney is just the opposite and knows the facts and details better than anyone. Obama’s knowledge of the Navy and its requirements is so poor that it borders on the imbecilic. He had just enough knowledge to mention aircraft carriers without understanding that one of them NEVER leaves port without an entire fleet of defensive and support ships surrounding it. Multiply the number of carriers times these extra ships and that is just the air power of the navy. Then you have the dedicated Marine Corps (That’s pronounced core), deployment ships and their support and the maintain the shipping/maritime lane ships that are required all over the world and it gets real tight with less than 300 ships when some of them need to be repaired occasionally. But hey Obama knows about carriers and nuclear subs. This is the most ignorant and arrogant person to ever hold this office.

My favorite part of the debate, and there were several instances of this, was when Romney was making a point, and Obama was doing his best Skeletor impression and staring at him. You could see the light go on, he would turn to Bob Shieffer, and nod his head, letting him know this was the moment Shieffer should “Crowley” and interrupt Romney and let Obama have the last comment.

Shieffer to his undying credit, was having none of it. There were several instances where Obama’s head swiveled to Schieffer, he nodded, or gave Bob the chin nod, and seeing nothing there turned back to Romney, only to swivel one again to Schieffer, thinking maybe Ol’ Bob had missed the tell.

You can say what you want about Scheiffer, but he earned an A+ as moderator last night with me because of this.

He is one of a very few of a dying breed.

Still, the hatred and anger evident in Obama for Schieffer not giving him his “Crowley” when he asked for it will earn him no gratis till the end of the Obama presidency. May it come none too soon.

Scheiffer interrupted Romney 6 times and Obowma 1 time. One key point Romney was making and was about to drop a hammer on Obowma and Scheiffer cut Romney off completely so there were some liberal moments by Scheiffer.

The reason a managed bankruptcy would have served GM better than the bailout is it would have allowed recasting the union contracts that inflate its costs and the entire executive core would have been forced out to attract new financing – even with government guarantees and bridge loans.

Instead, the old failed crew is still running the show and the unions are still bleeding the company. As another commenter said above, GM will certainly be back in bankruptcy within a year. Note that their stock is down to roughly half its reissue price, which is why Obama won’t sell the stock we hold back to the company, it would mean ANOTHER $17-20 billion loss to the taxpayer (in an election year, no less).

Some liberal moments, yes, but Scheiffer never pulled out a transcript to fact-check Romney on the spot, although there was an exchange where it sounded to me like Obama caught himself just before calling for Bob to pull one out.